El mar, 27-04-2010 a las 18:05 +0300, Johan Hedberg escribió:
> Hi,
>
> On Tue, Apr 27, 2010, Santiago Carot Nemesio wrote:
> > This patch add memory checks after malloc function is called.
> >
> > >From 7cce3be5a1a1d506f4da71fc394ee3ccf71d8159 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
> > From: Santiago Carot Nemesio <sancane@xxxxxxxxx>
> > Date: Tue, 27 Apr 2010 15:19:44 +0200
> > Subject: [PATCH 3/3] Added memory checks
> >
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Santiago Carot Nemesio <sancane@xxxxxxxxx>
>
> I've pushed the first two patches upstream but I did have to fix their
> commit messages before that. If you try "git am" yourself for what you
> sent you'll see that the summary line becomes just "SDP" for all of them
> and it should be more descriptive than that (for examples see the bluez
> commit history).
>
> The third patch should also see these changes but additionally there
> were a few issues I noticed in the actual code:
>
> > u = malloc(sizeof(uuid_t));
> > + if (!u) {
> > + errno = ENOMEM;
> > + goto fail;
> > + }
>
I known it, but much parts in sdp.c code still set errno to ENOMEM value
when malloc fails, it is the reason which i set it to ENOMEM too.
> malloc will set the errno for you on failure so you shouldn't need to do
> it in your code.
>
> > lang = malloc(sizeof(sdp_lang_attr_t));
> > + if (!lang) {
> > + errno = ENOMEM;
> > + goto fail;
>
> Same here.
>
> > - uuid_t *uuid128 = bt_malloc(sizeof(uuid_t));
> > + uuid_t *uuid128 = malloc(sizeof(uuid_t));
>
> This seems unrelated to the other changes in the patch. I don't know the
> exact philosophy of when bt_malloc should be used and when malloc should
> be used (maybe Marcel can comment on that), but I'd simply leave this
> change out of the patch.
>
> Johan
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-bluetooth" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
